Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641199
Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> 2010-10-08 08:04:26 EDT ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent:
work ~: rpmlint Desktop/glib-networking-*
glib-networking.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libproxy -> lib
proxy, lib-proxy, libratory
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
work ~:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (LGPLv2
or later).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum glib-networking-2.25.0.tar.bz2*
cb5dd6de77b491813a0855732591b29977c51e2fb4e3146e54015409740f2ec4
glib-networking-2.25.0.tar.bz2
cb5dd6de77b491813a0855732591b29977c51e2fb4e3146e54015409740f2ec4
glib-networking-2.25.0.tar.bz2.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2521917
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro).
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Ok, still keeping in mind the build failure in F-14, I didn't find any issues,
so this package is
APPROVED
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.